Because you have a hard on for Allah?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Please Continue, and explain to me why I am only picking on Islam? Why on earth would I ONLY have a problem with Islam?S.Lythberg wrote:
Christian:Lotta_Drool wrote:
I feel I proved my point quite well. Equating Islam as being the same as the other major religions when it comes to tolerance and nonviolence is utterly stupid. Look back and read the posts.
I know it sucks to be wrong so I can understand why you would rather attack me than debate with me.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/wpn_kkk_070501_ms.jpg
Hinduism:full articleAttacks against Christians throughout the country have increased significantly since the BJP began its rule at the center in March 1998. They include the killings of priests, the raping of nuns, and the physical destruction of Christian institutions, schools, churches, colleges, and cemeteries. Thousands of Christians have also been forced to convert to Hinduism. The report concludes that as with attacks against Muslims in 1992 and 1993, attacks against Christians are part of a concerted campaign of right-wing Hindu organizations, collectively called the sangh parivar, to promote and exploit communal clashes to increase their political power-base. The movement is supported at the local level by militant groups who operate with impunity.
Buddhism
http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/im … anmarp.jpg
need i continue?
All religions can and often are used to incite violence.
Please take a guess and be honest.
While I do think it would be fun to give it a deity just once, it could never happen because they don't exist.
btw, I got banned for us joking around in the other thread with the "yo momma" jokes. lol. I guess I will have to keep the kid gloves on when it comes to joking with people so please don't be offended if I don't reply to any taunts. I still do find them amusing.
btw, I got banned for us joking around in the other thread with the "yo momma" jokes. lol. I guess I will have to keep the kid gloves on when it comes to joking with people so please don't be offended if I don't reply to any taunts. I still do find them amusing.
If I had to make an honest, actual guess... I'd say it's because at some point in the past, you got rejected by a Muslim girl.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Please Continue, and explain to me why I am only picking on Islam? Why on earth would I ONLY have a problem with Islam?S.Lythberg wrote:
Christian:Lotta_Drool wrote:
I feel I proved my point quite well. Equating Islam as being the same as the other major religions when it comes to tolerance and nonviolence is utterly stupid. Look back and read the posts.
I know it sucks to be wrong so I can understand why you would rather attack me than debate with me.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/wpn_kkk_070501_ms.jpg
Hinduism:full articleAttacks against Christians throughout the country have increased significantly since the BJP began its rule at the center in March 1998. They include the killings of priests, the raping of nuns, and the physical destruction of Christian institutions, schools, churches, colleges, and cemeteries. Thousands of Christians have also been forced to convert to Hinduism. The report concludes that as with attacks against Muslims in 1992 and 1993, attacks against Christians are part of a concerted campaign of right-wing Hindu organizations, collectively called the sangh parivar, to promote and exploit communal clashes to increase their political power-base. The movement is supported at the local level by militant groups who operate with impunity.
Buddhism
http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/im … anmarp.jpg
need i continue?
All religions can and often are used to incite violence.
Please take a guess and be honest.
Let's just say they are not as easy as the Catholic girls.
I got two warnings for that but I didn't get banned. I never meant for that to happen btw, I was actually having a quite bit of fun with it to be honest.Lotta_Drool wrote:
While I do think it would be fun to give it a deity just once, it could never happen because they don't exist.
btw, I got banned for us joking around in the other thread with the "yo momma" jokes. lol. I guess I will have to keep the kid gloves on when it comes to joking with people so please don't be offended if I don't reply to any taunts. I still do find them amusing.
I'll probably get banned for my Allah comment now! ...But hey, the anti-Muslim camp can use it as an argument for Muslim appeasement!
Yeah, I thought it was quite appearent that we were both just having fun. I think the forum could use more people with a sense of humor instead of everyone getting so offended when someone disagrees with them.Braddock wrote:
I got two warnings for that but I didn't get banned. I never meant for that to happen btw, I was actually having a quite bit of fun with it to be honest.Lotta_Drool wrote:
While I do think it would be fun to give it a deity just once, it could never happen because they don't exist.
btw, I got banned for us joking around in the other thread with the "yo momma" jokes. lol. I guess I will have to keep the kid gloves on when it comes to joking with people so please don't be offended if I don't reply to any taunts. I still do find them amusing.
I'll probably get banned for my Allah comment now! ...But hey, the anti-Muslim camp can use it as an argument for Muslim appeasement!
I like a good heathy debate and to brutely point out peoples errors in their thought process. I will never lose sleep or cry a tear over what someone says on this forum. Hey, people disagree and some people entertain me with their inability to acknoledge facts or the truth.
Nice little dig at the end there!Lotta_Drool wrote:
Yeah, I thought it was quite appearent that we were both just having fun. I think the forum could use more people with a sense of humor instead of everyone getting so offended when someone disagrees with them.Braddock wrote:
I got two warnings for that but I didn't get banned. I never meant for that to happen btw, I was actually having a quite bit of fun with it to be honest.Lotta_Drool wrote:
While I do think it would be fun to give it a deity just once, it could never happen because they don't exist.
btw, I got banned for us joking around in the other thread with the "yo momma" jokes. lol. I guess I will have to keep the kid gloves on when it comes to joking with people so please don't be offended if I don't reply to any taunts. I still do find them amusing.
I'll probably get banned for my Allah comment now! ...But hey, the anti-Muslim camp can use it as an argument for Muslim appeasement!
I like a good heathy debate and to brutely point out peoples errors in their thought process. I will never lose sleep or cry a tear over what someone says on this forum. Hey, people disagree and some people entertain me with their inability to acknoledge facts or the truth.
gay bar
Lotta_Drool wrote:
Hey, people disagree and some people entertain me with their inability to acknoledge facts or the truth.
Blissful ignorance, eh? ^^
-konfusion
Bush and Blair know a bit about gay bars...
Bigotry?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Please Continue, and explain to me why I am only picking on Islam? Why on earth would I ONLY have a problem with Islam?
Please take a guess and be honest.
Or the scale of their acts, which i admit is currently much larger than the violence attributed to other religions. However, that is more likely due to the economic and political dysfunction in the Middle east, not the dominant religion.
Last edited by S.Lythberg (2008-03-31 16:51:36)
Sorry to disappoint, but your most all of your points against a US v MEX/CAN war can all be applied to our current situation, and are therefore moot.CameronPoe wrote:
But what would be the benefit to the US of attacking Mexico or Canada? a) You would be attacking trading partners. b) You would cause absolute incredulity across the globe. c) Neither have a pivotal tranche of the world's oil supply. d) Neither threaten Israel. e) Neither border other countries with gigantic tranches of the world's oil supply. f) Attacking either would inevitably bring conflict spillover onto sovereign home turf.
Having said that the US did have a stab closer to home soil when they tried to oust the democratically elected leader of Venezuela in a coup in the 90s. And what is it that Venezuela have oodles of....?
As you once said to me yourself "what do you expect cars to run on... farts?" He who controls/administers the oil, runs the global economy.
a) the united states has several trading partners in the ME
b) the entire damn media is obsessed with the ongoing war efforts; i'd say thats sparked some incredulity. Just about everything the US does sparks 'incredulity' across the globe.
c) Canada has the 2nd largest supply of proven oil reserves, in the world. Mexico, not quite as importantly, has about half as much as the US. I'd say that the US has plenty to gain from an invasion of Canada.
d) I'll agree with this. +1
e) Refer to part c, and also: given the fact that mexico is in such close proximity to the US's "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" in the gulf of mexico (something like 730 million barrels), i'd say that mexico could do some serious damage to us supplies. Also consider the 'rock and a hard place' we'd be put into: if, somehow (lets not argue the how), Mexico desotryed the reserve, what would we do? Propose that the ME countries immediately halted on oil supplies? Now we've got no income and no savings. Royally fucked. Not to mention gunslinger would more than likely have to get off his ass and go back to work now
f) Conflict spillover? Hasn't that already happened? September 11, bombings in london and madrid? The new realm of hassles just to get onto a plane? I'd say we've got a fair share of your spillover idea.
All i'm saying is that your grande points of the ridiculousness of a war with mex/can are invalid, as they can be applied to the war we're in now, or just about any other war we (or anyone else) has been in. It's all about points of view.
I dont wanna work
a. The severity of trading in the NAFTA countries is much stronger than that with minor Middle Eastern countries.R0lyP0ly wrote:
a) the united states has several trading partners in the ME
b) the entire damn media is obsessed with the ongoing war efforts; i'd say thats sparked some incredulity. Just about everything the US does sparks 'incredulity' across the globe.
c) Canada has the 2nd largest supply of proven oil reserves, in the world. Mexico, not quite as importantly, has about half as much as the US. I'd say that the US has plenty to gain from an invasion of Canada.
d) I'll agree with this. +1
e) Refer to part c, and also: given the fact that mexico is in such close proximity to the US's "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" in the gulf of mexico (something like 730 million barrels), i'd say that mexico could do some serious damage to us supplies. Also consider the 'rock and a hard place' we'd be put into: if, somehow (lets not argue the how), Mexico desotryed the reserve, what would we do? Propose that the ME countries immediately halted on oil supplies? Now we've got no income and no savings. Royally fucked. Not to mention gunslinger would more than likely have to get off his ass and go back to work now
f) Conflict spillover? Hasn't that already happened? September 11, bombings in london and madrid? The new realm of hassles just to get onto a plane? I'd say we've got a fair share of your spillover idea.
All i'm saying is that your grande points of the ridiculousness of a war with mex/can are invalid, as they can be applied to the war we're in now, or just about any other war we (or anyone else) has been in. It's all about points of view.
b. Incredulity imposes itself on war in any case, but a war within North America would dwarf the incredulity of war in the Middle East.
c. Access to oil is not necessarily controlling the oil directly. The United States and Canada enjoy a healthy relationship that benefits both with extensive free trade. Oil flows freely. It is a safe and secure source that is hardly threatened, and can be depended on. Having oil in the hands of Middle Eastern nations that are not friendly, or may take a volatile stance that can threaten the oil supply is primarily the greatest reason to fight over oil. The United States rarely has a problem with authoritarianism when the government is friendly or a puppet, which would invoke a similar stance. In Iraq, the United States now has a trading partner that can ensure trade of oil, likely within free trade, and the ability for overseas investment.